Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84744 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 17386 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt Shalini Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Tahir Ali Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Tahir Ali, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul, learned AGA for the State. 2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the Summoning Order dated 05.08.2023. passed by Additional Civil Judge A.C.J. (Junior Division) Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No.111557 of 2023 (Dipali Yadav Versus Smt. Shalini Yadav), Under Section 138 N. I. Act, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar, pending in the court of learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act was lodged on 14.06.2023 by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant with an allegation that a cheque bearing no. 000082 dated 05.02.2023 was drawn by the applicant which came to be dishonored on 03.05.2023 for funds insufficient, a statutory notice had been issued on 05.02.2023 which came to be served upon the applicant on 09.05.2023 and as the payments were not made so a complaint stood lodged on 14.06.2023. Thereafter, the court below summoned the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not been served with the statutory demand notice and, thus, the complaint is bound to fall. He submits that he is the resident of the same house where the opposite party no 2 is living but the address had been mentioned in the complaint is of Mathura, thus, there was no question of service of statutory notice. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the aadhar card while showing his residence. 4. Learned AGA has opposed the application while contending that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is already in favour of the holder and the question as to whether on the date when the cheque drawn and the notice was issued, the applicant was staying at Kanpur or Mathura is a matter of trial which cannot be gone into at this stage. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 6. Apparently, a cheque stood drawn which was dishonored, a statutory notice is stated to have been issued by the opposite party no. 2 to the applicant and in para 5 of the complaint, a specific assertion has been made that the notice has been served at true or correct address. Reliance so placed upon the aadhar card would not be relevant at this stage when this Court is occasioned with a challenge to the summoning order particularly when the aadhar card only shows the unique identification of a person but whether on actual basis, he was staying at a particular place wherein the alleged incident is stated to have been occurred is a question of fact which cannot be gone into at this stage. Moreover, Section 27 of the General Clauses Act would also play its role. The presumption is rebuttable but the stage of rebutting the same is when the trial commences and not now when the summoning order has been question. 7. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference, the application is consigned to record. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks direction for consideration of his bail application in light of the judgment in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another; decided on 07.10.2021 in S.L.P. No.5191 of 2021 9. In the opinion of the Court, once a bail application is preferred then the same shall be considered with most expeditions strictly as per the law of the land without any delay. Order Date :- 17.5.2025 Rajesh Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad